It is and it helps -----Original Message----- From: "Tim Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "REALbasic NUG" <[email protected]> Sent: 1/5/2007 2:22 PM Subject: Re: Opening QuickTime & Windows Media Player files in my project
On Jan 5, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Giovanni wrote: > Can you show where Apple covers the developers in its platform? > > 1- The link does not say "We are granting license". Content > providers is not the same as App developers. The page you provided > talks about MPEG-4 which is totally a different technology then MP3. The key here is that you are using the Quicktime binary (or Windows Media Player binary) from within your application - you've not "reinvented" the playback functionality with your app. In other words, if the user doesn't already have Quicktime, Flip4Mac, Windows Media Player, etc. installed, your application won't be able to play the media assigned to those playback engines. Therefore, the Apple or MS license to the End User is what matters and you don't need a special license from Apple or MS for this use. If you were writing your own codec that doesn't use the products as delivered by Apple, Microsoft, et al, you would need to worry about getting a license for your application based on the license restrictions of the format to be played back. However, since you're simply making use of the existing codecs that the user has already licensed by installing and agreeing to the EULA provided by Apple, Microsoft, et al, you're application does not require a separate license for playback of these formats. > > 2- Do you have any information other then the one provided by me > that a player(decoder) is not required licensing as long as they > use Flip4Mac? > > Flip4Mac is a codec, but Applications are different then a codec. > Quicktime is being used to develop an App. So in theory the payor > would have to be you the App developer not apple. No - Quicktime is being used inside of your app. > A good example of this is MP3 and the LAME MP3 library. Just > because you can use the Lame library it does not grant a developer > the right to use MP3, playback. Macromedia/Adobe pays a certain > amount of money in licensing for its developers, but I am yet to > find anything that says that apple has made an agreement or that > RealSoft has made an agreement with the MP3 people regarding this. You're not using a sublicensed set of codecs in the case of a RB application using QT / WMP for playback - i.e. you're not including the WMP or QT in your application, you're depending on it being present on the user's system; you're using the whole of that licensed Application. The application's license covers your use of the app just as it does the end user's. > > MP3 licensing explicitly says Application to decode(playback) and > encode(edit/save) and so does Microsoft. Codec licensing is a > different animal and requires different royalties. You're not creating a codec, you're using an existing one - one that is already licensed and licensed to the system's user. > I am not disagreeing with you, I would like to know where the > information is so that I can print it and have it on file just in > case MS, Apple, or any patent holder comes knocking at my door. I don't know of any specific docs on this as the licensors' demands are already covered by the EULA that the system user agreed to when they install QT, WMP, or F4M. > By the way, Playback on Windows is covered by microsoft if you use > different libraries, but it was my understanding that not all > libraries. This umbrella is under Windows only. If you create an > application to Decode and Encode on any other platform you are > required to get licensing. The key here is "if you create an application to decode and encode". You're not creating such an application if you're using the WMP and QT binaries to accomplish this. You really are turning this into much more than you need to in this case. You're not creating codecs, you're simply using the already licensed ones that exist on the users' systems. This is similar to the way we license BRU to our OEM partners - they can either license the BRU I/O engine from us and include it for their users, or they can require the user to have a valid BRU license and the call that binary from their application. The latter scenario is what you're doing with an RB app and QT/WMP/F4M - the end user must already have a license to the binary installed. Does that make this any more clear for you? Tim -- Tim Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Patent licensing is complicated and I personally hate some aspects > of it. > > Can anyone provide details for the Apple platform, I am quite > versed on the Windows side of things, but the Apple side eludes me. > Links would be great. > > By the way, if you live in a country where the International > Patents are not enforced, lucky you. I do not have that luck. > > Norman Palardy wrote: >> >> On Jan 05, 2007, at 3:56 AM, Giovanni wrote: >> >>> Licensing for most of [truncated by sender] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
